What are the energy solutions as defined by the left?

Question

Let me summarize, the left does not like coal power plants, nuclear power plants, or any oil based energy source. However, the reality is that these are our only viable sources for today's energy needs.

The left's answers are solar (completely inadequate for our needs), wind (see solar plus the fact that they take up HUGE plots of land and do a good job of killing of birds/bats), and biofuels. As for biofuels, the environmentalist feel we should use or primary food sources as a means of energy. This is a very bad idea for several reasons. One, what if a drought hits? Do we drive or eat? What happens to food prices? (learn some supply/demand theory or just ask mom about staple food prices recently). Finally, I thought enviro's loved the trees. But to grow more corn,etc, we will be slashing the forest to get more plantable fields. Time to realize, they are full of $&!*.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gG6RDP96uZ_A1auof7LysRqbgDxAD8ULPD0G0

Answer 1

I hate to put out a negative thinker!

Ultamatly all!!!!! the energie on the earth com's from the sun!

Fossilfuels com's from plant matter stored for a while.

So if we want to go back to bascics, we need to use energie from the sun!

Which is` sun and wind, which are entirely feasble if we stop having the very wastfull live styles we have, I'm no saint.

But are very consions of global warming.

I'm from Australia, do you know its a fact that the great barier reef will be dead!!!!! with in the next 20 years due to mostly global warming this is what the government sientists say!

Wind and solar and Bio fuels can and will have a major contribution to reduce global warming, its to late to talk a bout stopping global warming beacause it's already begun!!

And its to late to save the reef!!

Answer 2

1. Geothermal : cheap, efficient, green.

2. Solarthermal: cheap, efficient, green, less space efficient but perfect for many contries with vast areas of desert.

3. Tidal: takes up no real space, green.

yes, biofuels are a dangerous commodity when the world is facing famines from climate change... but you don't really believe that do you?

Answer 3

My view is somewhat tainted, first because I own interest in fossil fuels, secondly because I am rather more a conservative person than to label myself as left.

The Left like the right is not of one mind as to what the best energy solutions are. But conservatives have a slightly different motivation. We want to make money. Now I know that we can make money on Wind power if we can persuade people to buy power that is a bit variable in supply. In Ontario, with solar energy selling for $0.42 /kWh I know we can make a profit.

Nuclear plants are a bit of a problem. We have not built one for so long that the industry that builds them has not progressed... we are no where close to current technology. But also, our cost estimates appear to be flaky, out of date, and grossly understated. I just do not know if we could go modern and nuclear, get regulatory approval, get environmental approval.

We do have lots of sites to produce a mountain of wind power, but even then it has deep valleys when the lights go out unless we have smart panels, a panel that switches each circuit on when the price of energy is below some user chosen price. The harm to birds is less than the harm from coal plants, so I could live with that.

Solar does need some space, but no more than the space of our roof area. We may be able to rent roof areas to supply green energy.

I want to preserve our fossil fuels rather than extract them now, because I see more profit in selling it later. People will be in more desperate need of fuels as fossil fuels dwindle.

Answer 4

Gee, what a sincere question.  I'm glad you're open-minded, and that your mind isn't already made up.

/sarcasm.

"Proponents of [concentrated solar power] say you don't need to use up much of the desert space to make CSP effective. A solar farm taking up 92 by 92 miles of desert could power the entire U.S., for example, according to Green Wombat, referring to a calculation made by the chairman of solar company Ausra, David Mills."

"an area less than 0.3% of the Sahara Desert filled with CSP plants could power the entire region -- and could slash the EU's electricity-generated greenhouse gas emissions by 70% in the process."

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...

"With an installed peak power capacity of 20 megawatts, world's largest solar power farm has opened in Spain...The farm's total annual production will be the equivalent of the energy used by 20,000 homes."

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/...

Then of course there's wind (offshore and onshore), wave, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, etc. etc.

Answer 5

You're wrong.  Solar can appear on individual rooftops, and the payback currently occurs in less than 40 years.  That'll continue to improve as the technology develops and as competition and economy of scale improves prices.  The payback will aso get better as fossil-based energy gets more expensive.

A huge decrease in energy use can come from simple conservation (look up the Energy Star program for example).  Energy has been so cheap that there really wasn't much incentive to save until now.

Ethanol is a net negative once land use is factored in.  Biodiesel is even worse, contributing to the conversion of Amazon rain forest to soybeans.

Answer 6

Get a copy of Feb 2008 SciAm for a plan to provide 66% of all energy and 90% of electricty from Solar by 2050.  With current technology.  For 400 billion spread out over 40 years.  And after that, it's FREE.  

I won't say you're full of ****.  I won't call you a crazy conservative.  

I will say that the ignorance of you and your ilk is staggering and dangerous and it's going to cost us all dearly.